Quebec has had a universal government-funded daycare program since 1997; the rest of Canada has no such program. A new study by the C.D. Howe Institute compares the effects of the two child-care regimes on children, parents, and the economy. Conclusion: Quebec's program is good for the economy, but not for children and parents.
[W]hile $5-a-day child care had positive economic impacts by increasing the proportion of working mothers in Quebec by 21 per cent – more than twice the rate in the rest of Canada – it had negative effects on the well-being of children and parents.Comparing children age 4 or under in Quebec with those in the rest of Canada from 1994 to 2003, the researchers noted the increase in everything from aggressive behaviour to throat infections was much greater in Quebec – suggesting that children were worse off after the $1-billion-a-year program was introduced in 1997.
. . .
For almost every measure, we find an increased use of child care was associated with a decrease in their well-being relative to other children, the authors write. The well-being of parents also declined, with more mothers reporting depression. There was also a greater incidence of hostile parenting and dissatisfaction with spouses.
The authors also point out that their findings corroborate those of a 2003 US study that reported a correlation between aggression and misbehaviour in children and time spent away from maternal care.
The study and background information can be accessed here.
via Mere Comments.









Posts

[...] Daycare: Bad for children, bad for parents [...]
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave aReply [...]
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. One Response to “Another child-care expert turns againstdaycare” 1 Magic Statistics – “I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.” — Robertson Davies » Babies better off if mothers stay home says: April 10th, 2006 at 6:22 pm […] Babies better off if mothers stay home By StatGuy Times of London columnist Libby Purves praises Steve Biddulph for changing his mind when the evidence contradicted his former belief that daycare (nursery in Britain) is good for infants and toddlers. [H]e risks his neck by cautioning that putting children under 3 into nurseries all day may seriously damage their development. He saw the best nurseries struggle to meet the needs of very young children in a group setting. The worst were negligent, frightening and bleak — a nightmare of bewildered loneliness that was heartbreaking to watch. He supported early nursery once; he has looked and recanted.. . .A young baby needs a person not a place, not affordable care but devoted care. Perhaps not all day long, but for a good part of it. […] Leave a Reply [...]
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave aReply [...]
Higher female employment better for the whole country?…
An astonishingly wrong-headed story about female employment, the economy, and fertility appears in today’s CanWest newspapers. The reporter argues that encouraging women to enter the paid workforce is a “magic bullet” that will …